From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)  {MordeKyle  01:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply

CompLexity Gaming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no verifiability and is nothing but WP:CRUFT. WP:GNG has not been met, as there is no inclusion of actual WP:RS.  {MordeKyle  23:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Just to add, almost every bit of information in this article is not sourced as the vast majority of references are to complexitygaming.com, or to a twitter or facebook post by one of them.  {MordeKyle  23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for this, if you are willing to include this information in the article, I would have to withdraw my request.  {MordeKyle  20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The subject may be notable, but the article does not reflect this.  {MordeKyle  20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is one of the most prominent North American esports organizations; its notability and availability should not be called into question, by any stretch of the imagination. As for MordeKyle's replies to the keep votes, I would say this is a poorly-constructed article deserving significant work, about a worthy subject. AfD is certainly not the answer. DARTHBOTTO  talkcont 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DarthBotto:I'm asking only because I want to learn, what is the answer? The page is full of what is effectively WP:CRUFT and is nothing more than a very unsourced list of people. Maintenance tags have been ineffective in changing things. I'm genuinely curious.  {MordeKyle  00:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I would bring the article to the Article Rescue Squadron and explain that it's about a notable subject, but poorly composed and sourced. This one requires bold action, as it has every reason to remain, but hasn't been given proper treatment. DARTHBOTTO  talkcont 00:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.